[Gluster-users] [Gluster-devel] replace-brick command modification

[Atin Mukherjee]

This question was originally asked by me in the review. I was thinking
if replace brick nature is always commit force in nature then why not to
just abandon the parameters, Admin needs to be cautious enough about its
usage by any means.

~Atin

On 04/03/2015 11:17 AM, Gaurav Garg wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you for your thoughts. "force" should be present in command, i will keep it to "commit force".  
> replace brick command will be "gluster volume replace-brick <VOLNAME> <SOURCE-BRICK> <NEW-BRICK> commit force"
> 
> Regards
> Gaurav
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raghavendra Talur" <raghavendra.talur at gmail.com>
> To: "Kaushal M" <kshlmster at gmail.com>
> Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org
> Sent: Thursday, 2 April, 2015 11:33:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] replace-brick command modification
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Kaushal M < kshlmster at gmail.com > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kelvin Edmison 
> < kelvin.edmison at alcatel-lucent.com > wrote: 
>> Gaurav, 
>>
>> I think that it is appropriate to keep the commit force options for 
>> replace-brick, just to prevent less experienced admins from self-inflicted 
>> data loss scenarios. 
>>
>> The add-brick/remove-brick pair of operations is not an intuitive choice for 
>> admins who are trying to solve a problem with a specific brick. In this 
>> situation, admins are generally thinking 'how can I move the data from this 
>> brick to another one', and an admin that is casually surfing documentation 
>> might infer that the replace-brick operation is the correct one, rather than 
>> a sequence of commands that are somehow magically related. 
>>
>> I believe that keeping the mandatory commit force options for replace-brick 
>> will help give these admins reason to pause and re-consider if this is the 
>> right command for them to do, and prevent cases where new gluster admins 
>> start shouting 'gluster lost my data'. 
>>
>> Regards, 
>> Kelvin 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/02/2015 07:26 AM, Gaurav Garg wrote: 
>>>
>>> Hi all, 
>>>
>>> Since GlusterFs version 3.6.0 "gluster volume replace-brick <VOLNAME> 
>>> <SOURCE-BRICK> <NEW-BRICK> {start [force]|pause|abort|status|commit }" 
>>> command have deprecated. Only "gluster volume replace-brick <VOLNAME> 
>>> <SOURCE-BRICK> <NEW-BRICK> commit force" command supported. 
>>>
>>> for bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094119 , Patch 
>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10101/ is removing cli/glusterd code for 
>>> "gluster volume replace-brick <VOLNAME> <BRICK> <NEW-BRICK> {start 
>>> [force]|pause|abort|status|commit }" command. so only we have commit force 
>>> option supported for replace-brick command. 
>>>
>>> Should we have new command "gluster volume replace-brick <VOLNAME> 
>>> <SOURCE-BRICK> <NEW-BRICK>" instead of having "gluster volume replace-brick 
>>> <VOLNAME> <SOURCE-BRICK> <NEW-BRICK> commit force" command. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards 
>>> Gaurav Garg 
>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>> Gluster-users mailing list 
>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org 
>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> Gluster-users mailing list 
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org 
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users 
> 
> AFAIK, it was never the plan to remove 'replace-brick commit force'. 
> The plan was always to retain it while removing the unsupported and 
> unneeded options, ie 'replace-brick (start|pause|abort|status)'. 
> 
> Gaurav, your change is attempting to do the correct thing already and 
> needs no changes (other than any that arise via the review process). 
> 
> 
> I agree with Kelvin and Kaushal. 
> We should retain "commit force"; "force" brings the implicit meaning 
> that I fully understand what I am asking to be done is not the norm, 
> but do proceed and I hold myself responsible for anything bad that 
> happens. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~kaushal 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gluster-users mailing list 
> Gluster-users at gluster.org 
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
~Atin